ABSTRACT

The work
of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is described in a set
of technical guidelines designed to maximise accessibility to
digital resources. Further activities continue to focus on
technical developments, with current discussions exploring the
potential merits of use of Semantic Web and Web 2.0 approaches.
In this paper we argue that the focus on technologies can be
counter-productive. Rather than seeking to enhance accessibility
through technical innovations, the authors argue that the
priority should be for a user-focussed approach, which embeds
best practices through the development of achievable policies and
processes and which includes all stakeholders in the process of
maximising accessibility.

The paper reviews previous work in this area and summarises
criticisms of WAI's approach. The paper further develops a
tangram model which describes a pluralistic, as opposed to a
universal, approach to Web accessibility, which encourages
creativity and diversity in developing accessible services. Such
diversity will need to reflect the context of usage, including
the aims of a service (informational, educational, cultural,
etc.), the users' and the services providers' environment.

The paper describes a stakeholder approach to embedding best
practices, which recognises that organisations will encounter
difficulties in developing sustainable approaches by addressing
only the needs of the end user and the Web developer. The paper
describes work which has informed the ideas in this paper and
plans for further work, including an approach to advocacy and
education which coins the "Accessibility 2.0" term to describe a
renewed approach to accessibility, which builds on previous work
but prioritises the importance of the user. The paper concludes
by describing the implications of the ideas described in this
paper for WAI and for accessibility practitioner stakeholders.

1. The WAI Model

As the body responsible for the coordination of developments to Web
standards, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has taken a lead
in promoting accessibility of the Web for disabled people, not
only as Web users, but also as Web authors. Since 1997, the W3C's
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has been extremely active and very successful
both in raising awareness of the importance of Web accessibility and in
developing a model which can help organisations to develop
accessible Web resources. WAI promotes a tripartite model
of accessibility, with the goal of universal Web accessibility in
theory provided by full conformance with each of three components
[9]. Of particular relevance to developers of
Web resources is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
[39]. WAI has been successful in promoting the WCAG around the
world; the guidelines have been adopted by many organisations and
are increasingly being adopted at a national level [42].

In the
WAI model, the WCAG is coupled with accessibility guidelines for
browsing and access technologies (the User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines, UAAG [41]) and for tools to support creation of Web
content (Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines, ATAG [40]),
complemented by the activities of the Education and Outreach
Working Group (EOWG) [46] and the Protocol and Formats Working
Group (PFGW) [44]. This approach acknowledges that in addition to
providers of Web content, developers of authoring tools and of
browsers, media players and access technologies also have
responsibility towards the provision of accessible Web content.

2. Limitations Of WAI'S Approach

2.1 Shortcomings of the WAI Model

Although WAI has been very successful at a political level,
and to a large extent at a technical level, the authors feel that the model of
Web accessibility adopted by WAI is flawed. This is due partly to
the nature of the WCAG and also to the overwhelming domination of
the role of WCAG with respect to the other guidelines in the
accessibility of online information and services. The WAI model
relies on conformance with each of the three sets of guidelines
- WCAG for content, ATAG for the tools used to create the content,
and UAAG for the tools used to access that content. While Web
authors have control over how well they conform with WCAG, and to
a lesser extent ATAG, they have no control over how users access
content. This leaves an awkward situation whereby users may not
benefit from the accessibility features promised by a WCAG
conformant Web page, due to their choice of browsing or assistive
technology.

2.2 Shortcomings of WCAG

Shortcomings of version 1.0 of WCAG have been documented
elsewhere by the authors [16]. In theory, these shortcomings
should be of limited impact given that work has for several years
been ongoing on WCAG 2.0, the replacement for WCAG 1.0, since 2001.

WCAG 2.0
represents a fundamental departure from the approach to
accessibility taken by the May 1999 WCAG 1.0 recommendation. In
comparison to the HTML-focused WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0, on the other
hand, is fundamentally "technology-agnostic". Its core principles
(POUR: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust), guidelines
and related 'success criteria' aim to be applicable to the widest
possible range of present and future technologies used to deliver
content on the web - including non-W3C technologies. The
normative guidelines are meant to be complemented by
non-normative, technology-specific 'techniques' documents,
detailing specific implementation examples and best practices.

The call
for review of the WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft was issued in
April 2006. This was received in many expert circles with
reactions ranging "between the lukewarm and the outright hostile"
[22]. In an article that brought WCAG 2.0 to the attention of the
wider Web design community, Clark [10] raised (among other
issues) fundamental concerns regarding:

The size of the documentation (normative
and non-normative), which, it is argued, will negatively impact
adoption by actual designers and developers.

Its inscrutable language: due to WCAG
2.0's aim to be technologically neutral, the language used for
guidelines and success criteria is generic, comprised of vague
new terms and definitions.

The potential for abuse inherent in the
concepts of baselines and scoping as a means to justify
inaccessible sections of a site and proprietary technologies
which present accessibility hurdles to users.

The omission of markup validation /
standards-compliance from the guidelines.

Lack of adequate provision for users
with cognitive disabilities and learning difficulties.

On this
last point, Seeman submitted a formal objection to WCAG 2.0,
requesting that implicit claims that the guidelines do cover
cognitive disabilities be omitted from the guidelines' abstract altogether [32].

Almost a
year after the original call for review, WAI is still working
towards addressing issues and comments raised during the review
period. It hopes to issue updated documents in early 2007, with a
view to finalising the guidelines by the end of the year [43] but
whether this deadline will be achieved and whether the guidelines
will be approved by W3C member organisations remains to be seen.
Indeed, the presence of work led by Clark, but unaffiliated to
W3C, to concentrate on providing "corrections for, and extensions
to WCAG 1.0" [46] indicate a lack of faith many Web developers
have in WCAG 2.0 which recently culminated in an open
letter by Clark to Tim Berners-Lee [11], calling for the new
version of the guidelines to be canceled.

3. Measuring Accessibility: Evidence-Based Accessibility

WAI defines Web accessibility as meaning
that "people with disabilities can use the Web ... more
specifically [they] can perceive, understand, navigate, and
interact with the Web" [14]. However, as discussed above, it
strongly advocates measuring accessibility by conformance to
accessibility guidelines, particularly WCAG. Yet this leaves a
gap in the logic of how to ensure accessibility - what is the
evidence that following the guidelines will create resources that
people with disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate and
interact with? This evidence is surprisingly lacking. The
investigation conducted for the Disability Rights Commission [13]
found no relationship between the number of violations of
accessibility guidelines and either objective or subjective
measures disabled people's ability to use 100 Web sites. As part
of a similar investigation for the Museums, Libraries and
Archives Council [22] a study of the accessibility of a sample of
international museum Web sites found the museum Web site with the
highest conformance to WCAG was the one disabled users found most
difficult to use.

There is a similar lack of evidence for the
basis of the three priority levels used in WCAG which make
specific claims about the number of groups of disabled users and
the problems of accessibility if guidelines of particular
priorities are violated. A user-based study with blind Web users
recently found that there was no relationship between users
ratings of problems they encountered and the priority levels
associated with these problems [23]. There is an urgent need for
more investigations of evidence for the relationship between
accessibility as measured by user behaviour and by conformance to
guidelines.

Not only is there a need for evidence to
support WAI guidelines, there is also a need for an
evidence-based approach to accessibility as we move forward to
WCAG 2.0. A useful model in this regard is the set of guidelines
for Web usability compiled by the US Department of Health and
Human Services [12]. Each guideline in this set is accompanied by
a rating of its importance in creating usable Web resources and a
rating of its "strength of evidence". The methodology for
producing these ratings and all the research used in calculating
them is provided in the documentation. This transparent approach
would be extremely useful for developing measures of
accessibility. Unfortunately one critical problem is the lack of
empirical research on the details of accessibility to draw on in
developing such measures.

4. The Role Of Context

WCAG
aims to support Web authors in making content as accessible and
usable to disabled people as possible. The overarching purpose of
the guidelines is impeccable but the way they are expressed does
not take account of variations in the context of use. They work
best where the information design task is one of simple
presentation, such as in the case of a novel, company accounts,
train timetables, self-assembly instructions and so on, where the
role of the user is simply to apprehend the information. But
there are contexts where the user role extends beyond simple
apprehension to include, for example, analysis and
interpretation. This becomes a major challenge when interpreting
and applying WCAG in, for example, a cultural or artistic context
or a teaching and learning environment. Consider Figure 1.
What can you see?

Figure 1: What is this?

(Reproduced with permission from
http://www.seabury.edu/faculty/akma/duckrab.gif)

Figure 1 is a typical gestalt- style image
that at times looks like a duck and at other times a rabbit. It does not morph
gradually from one to the other but seems to transform
instantaneously. WCAG checkpoint 1.1 exhorts designers to provide
a text equivalent for every non-text element to accommodate those
with visual impairment. What would that mean in this instance? A
text that described the image as either a duck or a rabbit would
be misleading. To describe it as an image that looks like both a
duck and a rabbit is probably not very helpful and immediately
gives the game away. The whole point of the picture is to let the
viewer experience each of these competing images for themselves.
The idea of providing an alternative but equivalent experience is
based on sound logic, but the requirement to provide a text
alternative is probably inappropriate in this instance. It may be
possible to create an equivalent sensation by offering a sound
that can be interpreted in more than one way. Or it may be that
we have to accept that in the Web environment there are occasions
when there is no alternative equivalent experience and that some
other medium, a tactile model for example, is required to
supplement the digital information.

Figure 2: Normal and Cancerous Cells

(Reproduced with permission from
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/images/mitopic_nr.jpg)

The duck/rabbit image is arguably a special case, relevant perhaps
largely within the domain of visual perception. But ambiguity and
interpretation are distinguishing characteristics of most
learning contexts beyond simple rote learning. While there will
be occasions when it is important to convey information
unambiguously (for example Figure 2 shows what a
healthy cell looks like compared with a cancerous cell), at other
times it will be important to be less explicit (can the learner
tell if another, different, cell is cancerous?).

While a
significant proportion of learning is factual, it is widely
recognised that knowledge is not simply transmitted from one
party to another. It is constructed by the learner through some
process of interaction with the information [6]. In some fields, such as the arts and humanities,
personal perspective plays an important role in the learning
process. Take the example of the image in Figure 3.

Figure 3: What Does This Convey? (Man against snow, Austrian Tirol 1974, reproduced with permission
of the photographer: Professor Paul Hill)

It is
easy enough to provide a text description of what the picture
shows factually: a figure in a dark coat walking beside a snowy
bank. It is much harder to convey what the picture means. There
may be as many interpretations as there are viewers, depending on
their perspectives and motives for examining the picture: artist?
historian? fashion designer? How does Figure 3
make you feel? What would it like to be walking behind this
person? Can you imagine being this person? A text alternative
would be hard pressed to reproduce the ambiguity and ambience of
such an image.

These
simple examples have big implications for the way we think about
accessibility in the context of learning. Clearly, it is a
mistake to slavishly follow the guidelines; and therefore a
mistake to mandate adherence to guidelines if
the guidelines do not support contextual application as would be
required in the examples above. We need to think about the
problem from the perspective of the user. What are they likely to
want or need to be able to do? And how can we best provide for
those needs? Can we encapsulate this advice in guidelines, or do
we have to enable learning by example?

In other words, we need to take a more holistic view, focusing on the
accessibility of the learning or cultural experience in totality
rather than merely thinking about the accessibility of the
information resources in isolation. From this perspective the
WAI's argument on "Why Standards Harmonization is Essential to
Web Accessibility" [44] can be counter-productive: the
application of harmonised standards may be desirable if other
factors are equal, but not if this approach overrides the
contextual aspects illustrated in this section.

5. A Holistic Approach

5.1 A Holistic Model for E-learning Accessibility

We have
described a holistic approach to e-learning accessibility
previously [17], [33]. This holistic approach sought to address
the limitations of the WAI approach and to address the need to
address the accessibility of the learning outcomes, rather than
focusing on the accessibility of the e-learning resources. It
recognises that other contextual aspects also need to be
addressed, including pedagogical issues, available resources,
organisation culture, and usability, as discussed previously).
This holistic approach focuses on the accessibility of the
outcomes of a service, departing from the traditional approach
which addresses the accessibility of the service itself. The
change in the emphasis from the creator of Web resources to the
end user surfaces another tension: the context of use of the
resource. The traditional approach has been to follow WCAG
guidelines for the Web resource, in isolation of the use of the
resource. Inverting this approach can lead to greater challenges
for the Web developer, who will need to gain an understanding of
the way in which the service is to be used and the wider issue
related to its intended purpose.

5.2 The Tangram Model

In
addressing the limitations of applying the WAI model for Web
accessibility within the context of e-learning, exploring a
holistic approach to e-learning accessibility led to the
development of a Tangram metaphor [33] Here, the metaphor
implies an extensible, multi-component solution to accessibility
that will vary depending on situation: as well as WAI guidelines,
other guidelines may also be used, such as Nielsen's usability
heuristics [20], guidelines for design for specific user groups,
such as older people [18] or guidelines on clarity of written
content [37].

Figure 4: The Tangram Model for Web
Development

The aim of this approach is to provide a solution which maximises the
usefulness to the end user, as opposed to the current WAI
approach which encourages mandatory application of a limited set
of guidelines. The metaphor is meant to clarify that the most
appropriate solutions can be obtained by engaging with the users
rather than simply applying a set of rules.

We can see several advantages in the application of this model:

The model can be extensible (we can make use of additional 'pieces').
This allows the approach to be extended as, for example, new
technologies become available (e.g. guidelines for use of
accessible Macromedia Flash or PDF can be incorporated).

The model can cover general IT
accessibility and is not limited to Web accessibility. This is
particularly valuable given the accessibility implications of the
anticipated convergence of Web and broadcast media, and resultant
changes in access and delivery methods [7]

The model can be extended to include real world solutions instead of constricting usage to poorly
supported or commercially impractical technologies.

The model can be extended to include Web
accessibility issues which are not covered in WCAG (e.g. the
accessibility of hard copy output of Web pages).

The model is well-suited for use with
Web resources which are personalised though use of accessibility
metadata such as IMS Accessibility Metadata [33] (the model
emphasises the service provided to the end user rather than
individual components).

The model can be deployed across different legal systems.

The model is neutral regarding technologies.

6. A Stakeholder Model

6.1 Developing a Stakeholder Model of Accessibility

A parallel activity in attempting to address the problem of a
fixation by accessibility practitioners on 'compliance' with some
form of accessibility 'rules' (often WCAG) has resulted in the
development of the Stakeholder Model of Accessibility. This was
driven by the need to expand thinking beyond that of how to
comply with rules, towards how to meet the needs of disabled
people, within the local contexts that users and their support
workers are operating. This work has resulted in a contextualised
model of accessibility practice, drawn from the context of higher
education [30], [31]. This contextualised model of accessible
e-learning practice in higher education takes into account:

All the stakeholders of accessibility within a higher education institution.

The context in which these stakeholders have to operate: drivers and mediators.

How the relationship between the stakeholders and the context influences the
responses they make and the accessible e-learning practices that develop (see
Figure 5).

The
extent to which e-learning material and resources are accessible
will therefore be influenced by how all the stakeholders within a
higher education institution respond to external drivers for
accessibility such as legislation, guidelines and standards. In
addition, however, this response will be mediated by stakeholders
views and understandings of a range of issues including:
disability, accessibility and inclusion; the extent to which they
view themselves to have a duty and responsibility to respond; the
extent to which they feel their personal autonomy is threatened
and the extent to which they feel it is necessary or beneficial
to respond as a community or team. The accessible e-learning
practices that develop out of these responses will therefore vary
depending on the stakeholders and the context in which they are
operating but essentially centres on taking ownership and control
as well as developing personal meaning (i.e. personal
interpretations of the drivers of accessibility, depending on
personal experiences and understandings).

A central argument that underpins this model is that accessible e-learning practice will
not develop through the actions of individual practitioners or
stakeholders. Accessible e-learning practice will develop and
progress when all the different stakeholders join to work
together. The key stakeholders in the development of accessible
e-learning within a higher education institution can be
identified as: lecturers, learning technologists, student support
services, staff developers and senior managers and of course
disabled students (users).

The importance of including disabled students as stakeholders of
accessibility can be seen when we consider the results of a
number of studies that have evaluated the accessibility of
university main Web sites and found evidence of inaccessibility
and failure to comply with WCAG 1.0 guidelines [3], [36] and
[48]. Without a user-focused or stakeholder approach to
accessibility the obvious response to such results would be to
continue pointing to guidelines (this has not necessarily worked
for WCAG 1.0, why should we assume it will work for WCAG 2.0?) or
to place our hopes in new technologies such as Web 2.0 (why
should we assume that Web 2.0 technologies will succeed where
hundreds of accessibility focused technologies such as repair and
filter tools have had limited success?).

We
propose therefore that a more fruitful response would be to
explore in more depth the students' experiences of e-learning and
accessibility and the role that other stakeholders can play in
helping to bridge any gap that exists between students and their
online learning experiences. In other words, we should stop
focusing solely on the drivers of accessibility and turn our
attentions instead to the mediators of accessibility.

6.3 Combining the Tangram and Stakeholder Models

There
are synergies and overlaps between the two models of
accessibility described in Sections 5 and
6. At the heart of both models are concepts of
flexibility, contextualisation and user-involvement. Both models
are underpinned by the argument that good design will be mediated
by more factors than just a single set of guidelines.

The
accessibility community has tools (legislation, guidelines,
standard and policies) but what it lacks is an agreed "way of
doing things" - an agreed way of using these tools. The Tangram
and Stakeholder models of accessibility have been developed to
offer a way forward from this stalemate position, by prompting us
to move from trying to find "one best way" towards finding a
"range of acceptable ways" that can be adapted to suit different
purposes and contexts.

7. Application In The Real World

We have described a richer underlying framework for
accessibility which is based on the Tangram and Stakeholder
model. Application of this approach will require a wider
framework of activities, including further advice and support for
a wide range of stakeholders, extending involvement from just Web
developers and policy makers as described in our previous work.
Accessibility researchers should also look to how their work can
support a contextual approach to accessibility.

In the
UK and elsewhere, a philosophy of contextual accessibility can
already be seen to be influencing a range of sectors in the way
accessibility is considered in design. Some examples are given below.

7.1 E-Learning Examples

The contextualised model described in Figure 5
offers seven examples of stakeholder responses to both the
drivers and mediators of accessibility: identify brokers; develop
strategic partnerships; define and agree best practice; develop
shared goals; develop policies and strategies; re-organise
services and develop and use own tools. Accessibility drivers and
mediators can influence these responses in many different ways.

A classic response within Higher Education has been to
develop and use contextualised tools and, in particular, contextualised
guidelines.

The development of these tools has involved a range of different
stakeholder operating at different levels, with different motivations.
At the manager or macro level, examples of contextualised guidelines include:

The Chancellor's Office of California
Community Colleges [8] access guidelines for distance educators
working with students with disabilities considered a range of
delivery media including print, audio and video conferencing as
well as the Web.

The Australian Vice Chancellor's
Committee's [4] 'Guidelines on Information Access for Students
with Disabilities' are presented as advice on good practice,
with the aim of assisting individual institutions to meet the
needs of students with print disabilities through strategies and
arrangements which are appropriate to their local circumstances.

A more
global set of guidelines designed to cover education is that
produced by the IMS Global Learning Consortium [11]. The
Consortium recognises that other guidelines exist but argue that
they are offering specific guidelines for areas that these
guidelines do not cover (e.g. specific guidelines for subjects
such as Maths and Music).

At the
teacher- or meso-level, examples of contextualised guidelines
include those that refer to education specific technologies such
as Virtual Learning Environments [21]. The ALERT Project [2]
offers a set of guidelines for using Virtual Learning
Environments that will enable disabled learners to meet the
pedagogical objectives that underpin the use of the VLEs. These
guidelines are based on detailed interviews with disabled
students and consider a range of teaching and learning activities
such as discussions and assessments.

At the
learner or micro level, examples of contextualised guidelines
include guidelines to cater for specific disabilities that
disabled learners have, for example learners with dyslexia [27].
For example, Powell et al [25] analysed both generic and
dyslexia specific guidelines and drew out twelve recurrent
themes, which they distilled into guidelines for designing
e-learning material for dyslexic students.

The
development of such local or contextualised guidelines could be
viewed with alarm, in terms of the potential confusion that could
be caused in relation to WCAG and a perceived need for
standardisation. On the other hand, these developments could be
viewed quite positively in terms of developing appropriate
responses based on users needs as well as developing responses
that are meaningful within the contexts that they are being used.

7.2 Institutional Repositories Example

A recent
discussion on the digital-repositories JISCMail list [1] revealed
some of the tensions between different UK stakeholders involved
in the provision of institutional repositories of digital
resources, in particular repositories of e-prints of
peer-reviewed publications. Activists within the open access
community have been arguing for the provision of free access to
scholarly research publications. The open access movement has
been successful in facilitating a wide public debate, in
developing a range of technical solutions and in the promotion of
the benefits across the academic community.

Many
providers of institutional repositories envisage the authors
depositing PDF versions of their papers in a repository: an
approach which causes concerns regarding the accessibility of the
resources. Suggestions that accessible HTML versions of papers
should be provided have led to concerns that mandating HTML will
place another hurdle in the way which can hinder the move towards
greater access to the outputs of the research community. There is
a conflict between those wishing to maximise open access by
reducing barriers for authors wishing to deposit resources and
those wishing to maximise access to resource for people with
disabilities.

Our
pragmatic user-focussed approach aims to address such tensions,
within the context of the host institution. This would require
institutions to develop policies and procedures which address
issues including:

User engagement: Engaging with various stakeholders within the
institution, including authors with disabilities, disability
advisory bodies, etc.

Education: Development of an educational strategy to ensure that
depositors of resources are made aware of accessibility issues
and techniques for addressing such issues.

Monitoring: Monitoring tools used to create papers and formats used
for depositing and prioritising training and technical
developments based on popular tools.

Work flow evaluation: Evaluating work flow processes to ensure that
accessibility features used are not discarded.

Technical innovation: Monitoring technical innovation which may help
in making resources more accessible.

End user support: Development of policies for supporting users
who may not be able to access resources.

Engagement with third party
stakeholder:
Identifying problems in publishers' templates and guidelines and
making suggestions on improvements to ensure that papers based on
such templates and guidelines will be more accessible.

Making use of third party services: The
increasing development of third party Web 2.0 services can mean
that such services may be able to provide richer accessibility
than can be available by use of in-house applications. The Scribd
service, for example, uses a text-to-speech converter to provide
an audio transcript of documents uploaded to the service [38].

This
approach is intended to avoid the scenario in which an
organisation abandons plans to launch a repository which cannot
be universally accessible, resulting in a situation which,
ironically, is equally unavailable to everyone.

7.3 PAS 78 - Adopting Contextual Accessibility in a Standard

In March 2005, Publicly Available Specification 78: Guide to Good Practice
in Commissioning Accessible Websites (PAS 78) was launched in the
UK by the British Standards Institute [5]. It deviated from a
typical 'standard' for Web accessibility in that it sought to
promote a standard method of procuring accessible Web
content, rather than designing accessible content. The standard
emerged as a solution to the technical interpretation of
accessibility guidelines experienced by those who were
responsible for the establishment of a Web site, but without
necessarily having the knowledge to:

Specify a level of accessibility to be met, and

Assess the delivered Web site for adherence to the specified level of accessibility.

While not related to the work described by the authors,
the emergence of PAS 78 is relevant and of interest because:

The nature of the document is such that
it has to concentrate on a process that results in an
optimally accessible Web site, rather than attempt to define a
technically-testable level of accessibility.

The document has a life-span of two
years, after which point it is anticipated that a revised version
will be necessary in order to update developments in Web,
browsing and assistive technologies and formats, as well as
emergence and maturation of relevant research and other
standards.

The nature of the document promotes and
enables a contextual approach to be taken without mandating
compliance with a specific technical standard, although it does
strongly promote the merits of WCAG, UAAG and ATAG conformance,
In this way, it encourages a more creative approach to choosing
an appropriate accessibility strategy for the particular set of
circumstances the reader faces.

The
emergence of PAS 78 is therefore a complementary to the
legislation of the UK's DDA, which concentrates on the
obligations of employers, providers of "goods, facilities and
services", and educational providers to take the necessary steps
to avoid unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people;
without mandating what 'reasonable steps' should be.

8. Building On The Contextual Approach

In
February 2004 an Accessibility Summit was held in the UK which
discussed the WAI guidelines and their applicability to the
everyday activities of people preparing Web-based and electronic
materials in UK higher education institutions. From this the
holistic approach and later the Tangram model were developed in
an attempt to describe the limitations of WCAG and to move
towards the more user-focussed approach espoused in this paper.
Indeed, several of the participants from the original
Accessibility Summit later provided a response to the Draft WCAG
2.0 published by the W3C [29].

The
second Accessibility Summit, held in November 2006, included a
broader range of expertise and sectors. The discussions
crystallised the common views of the participants and led to the
creation of a manifesto to call on the public sector to rethink
its approach to accessibility, utilising the WCAG as a part of a
suite of approaches, rather than a standard with which to comply.
The manifesto [26] suggests that accessibility guidelines should
focus on the needs of the user and that technical guidelines
should allow sufficient flexibility for approaches that are not
necessarily guideline compliant to form part of a range of
activities which, taken as a whole, form an accessible
experience. It also recommends that users and stakeholders are
consulted as part of the process of determination of
accessibility in each context and that accessibility policy
should be informed by research which as far as possible should
allow for open access to data.

Future
work in this area will involve the development of a roadmap, with
a clear plan for future actions and identification of areas of
disagreement for more research and specific action. This work
will continue to discuss and develop trends in the international
accessibility field and translate them into a meaningful approach
to accessibility in the UK.

9. Accessibility 2.0

We have
described the holistic approach to e-learning accessibility and
how this approach can be applied in a wider range of contexts,
through use of the tangram metaphor and the contextualised
stakeholder model, which
provides a forum for discussion and debate across the stakeholder
community. There still remains a need to be able to communicate
the underlying philosophy with the wider community, including
those involved in the development of accessibility guidelines,
policy makers, accessibility organisations and government
organisations.

The 'Accessibility 2.0' term aims to provide a means for articulating
a shift in the approaches to addressing accessibility. This term
builds on the wide penetration of the 'Web 2.0' term and related
terms such as e-learning 2.0, library 2.0, etc. which aim to
communicate a step change in approaches.

We can
describe the characteristics of Accessibility 2.0 as:

User-focussed:
As with Web 2.0, the emphasis is on the needs of the
user. Accessibility 2.0 aims to address the needs of the user
rather than compliance with guidelines.

Rich set of stakeholders:
In contrast with traditional
approaches to Web accessibility, which places an emphasis on the
author of Web resources and, to a lesser extent, the end user,
Accessibility 2.0 explicitly acknowledges that need to engage
with a wider range of stakeholders.

Sustainability:
Accessibility 2.0 emphasises the need for the
sustainability of accessible services.

Always beta:
There is an awareness that a finished perfect solution
is not available; rather the process will be on ongoing
refinement and development.

Flexibility:
A good-enough solution will be preferred to the vision
of a perfect technical solution.

Diversity:
Recognition of the need for a diversity of solutions.

Blended, aggregated solutions:
Users want solutions and services, but
these need not necessarily be a single solution; nor need the
solution be only an IT solution.

Accessibility as a bazaar, not a
cathedral:
The Cathedral and the Bazaar [28] analogy can be used to compare
Accessibility 1.0 and 2.0. The WAI model is complex and
developments are slow-moving in responding to rapid technological
developments.

The devolved approach of Accessibility 2.0 allows
solutions to be deployed much more rapidly. These characteristics
are summarised in Table 1.

Accessibility 1.0

Accessibility 2.0

Centralised

Devolved

Single solution

Variety of solutions

Slow moving / Inflexible

Rapid response / Flexible

Remote testing

Testing in context

Hierarchical

Democratic

Idealistic

Pragmatic

Computer scientist's solution

Social scientist's solution

Focus on digital resources themselves

Focus on purpose of the resources

Technical debates (e.g. Semantic Web vs. Web 2.0)

Technnology-neutral

Popularity of automated testing tools (such as Bobby/Webxact)

Verification of policies and processes

End user and page authors as stakeholders

Rich variety of stakeholder communities

E-learning

Blended learning

Objective testing and verification

Subjective testing and verification

Medical model for disability

Social model for disability

Clear destination (WCAG AAA)

Focus on journey, not the destination

Accessibility as a thing

Accessibility as a process

Accessibility as a cathedral

Accessibility as a bazaar

Table 1: Characteristics of Accessibility 1.0 and Accessibility 2.0

10. Implications For WAI

This
paper has highlighted deficiencies in the WAI approach to Web
accessibility, but only in an effort to present a rationale for a
new approach to accessibility of Web resources. It should be
acknowledged that WAI has been extremely successful in raising an
awareness of the importance of Web accessibility and in providing
an initial model which has enabled providers of Web services to
provide more accessible services. The lively debate on the future
of the WAI guidelines reflects the interests of a wide range of
communities in building on WAI's initial work.

Despite
the problems with the current state of the WCAG guidelines, WCAG
2.0's technology-neutral approach, its foundation on the POUR
(perceivable, operable, understandable, robust) general
principles, the provision of baselines (which provide
contextual solutions based on the end user's technical
environment) and the recognition (in the related, non-normative
techniques documents) that there can often be more than one
solution for passing a success criterion, resonate with the ideas
outlined in this paper. We would argue, however, that WAI can
provide a more solid set of foundations on which to develop an
environment for building more accessible Web services if the
following issues are addressed:

Clarifying the WAI model:
The WAI model is dependent not only
on Web authoring implementing WCAG guidelines, but also software
vendors providing UAAG-compliant user agents and ATAG-compliant
authoring tools. In addition there is an implicit assumption that
the organisations will deploy such tools and end users will make
use of them. The evidence since the guidelines were released
proves that such assumptions have not been reflected in reality.
In the light of such evidence we suggest decoupling the 3-faceted
WAI model, with WAI guidelines providing advice on best practices
for Web authors, whilst the ATAG and UAAG guidelines provide
advice aimed at software vendors. The WCAG guidelines should not,
however, require adoption of tools which
implement ATAG and UAAG guidelines.

Clarifying the role of context:
The WCAG 1.0 guidelines do acknowledge the role of context in statements such as
'Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ...'.
A similar guideline stating 'Use WCAG guidelines when they
are appropriate for a task ...' would be a simple way of
recognizing that guidelines may not be applicable based on the
context of use. This probably reflects the spirit of the
guidelines, but this is not how the guidelines are often interpreted.

Acknowledgment that ultimate goal is accessibility for
users:
The Web accessibility guidelines should explicitly state their
limited scope in seeking to address the accessibility of Web
resources, and that accessibility in a wider context could be
achieved using non-Web solutions.

Acknowledging the relevance of
diversity:
WAI have always emphasised that compliance with WCAG guidelines
need not lead to a uniform interface, and that CSS can be used to
provide a diversity of user interfaces which can be accessible.
With WCAG 2.0 guidelines being tolerant of a diversity of formats
(including Flash and PDF, for example) there will be a need for
the guidelines to restate the relevance of diversity in order to
make a break with the approaches given in WCAG 1.0.

De-emphasing automated checking:
Although WCAG guidelines do emphasise the importance of manual
checking, in reality an industry has developed based on use of
automated accessibility testing. There is therefore a need to
re-evaluate the current approaches being taken and the
effectiveness of WAI's outreach activities in this area. It is
suggested that the tangram model may provide a useful educational
device for demonstrating that automated testing addresses only a
small part of the picture.

Refocussing of WAI's education and outreach
activities:
WAI's education and outreach activities will have an important
role in ensuring that the diversity of stakeholders involved in
the provision of accessible services have an understanding of the
model which underpins the ideas described in this paper.

Engaging with a wider range of
stakeholder:
WAI's high profile places it in an ideal position to take on a
coordinating role with other stakeholders in the development of a
decentralised approach to maximising the accessibility, usability
and interoperability of digital resources.

11. Implications For Accessibility Practitioners

The work
undertaken in developing these conceptual models needs to be
translated into concrete outcomes, as highlighted by the second
Accessibility Summit and discussed further at a Professional
Forum on Accessibility 2.0 at the Museums and the Web 2007
conference [18] which explored the challenges in taking forward
the contextual approaches within a museums context. These include:

Research to produce
accessibility-related evidence on which more informed design
decisions can be made. Some such work has already taken place,
although it has been argued that this has not impacted on the Web
development community as much as it could have [34]. This might
include evidence of, for example, assistive technology uptake and
usage, and attitudes to and awareness of browser capabilities.

Developing and publicizing a body of best practice. Through case studies and
other descriptions of successes - and failures - of how the Web
has enhanced accessibility, this will reify what has until now
been best practice that is only implied by appropriate
interpretation of generic guidelines.

There is also scope for standardising
aspects of Web design with respect to accessibility, for example
in the way that accessibility support and advice is provided to
end users who need it most - particularly those for whom a
gradual decline in sensory, physical or cognitive capability has
led to an as yet undetected deterioration in browsing experience
[35].

Outreach to policymakers and the legal sector, such that contextual
accessibility is incorporated appropriately in future policy,
standards and legislation. The publication of PAS 78 in the UK
has shown that this is possible; success in terms of adoption of
PAS 78 remains to be seen.

As we
move to a more context-driven, process-driven approach to Web
accessibility, we anticipate other issues emerging, which will
require attention by researchers and practitioners alike. This in
turn will lead, we hope, to a better understanding of how the Web
can be used to its full potential as an enabling technology.

12. Conclusions

It is
clear that current approaches to accessibility must adapt in
order to respond to changes in the way Web content is created,
provided and accessed. In particular, challenges include the
increasingly diverse sources of Web content, and the role the Web
plays in a wider context of information, service and experience
delivery. There will remain, of course, an important role for
technical guidance on what constitutes best practice in
accessible Web design. It is equally important that approaches
should help to identify where a 'one size fits all' approach may
be impractical or inappropriate, and should encourage and support
creativity in providing multiple, aggregated routes that together
help as many as possible achieve the same end goal.

What we have termed 'Accessibility 2.0' is therefore
about codifying best practice in taking whatever steps are reasonable and
necessary to ensure that the Web can be used to its potential of enabling
access to information, services and experiences regardless of
disability. This means creating a framework where technical
guidance WCAG 1.0, and potentially WCAG 2.0, has a valid and
valuable role to play within a wider context, and encouraging
defining context such that it can positively influence the design
approach taken. A combination of the Tangram metaphor and
Stakeholder model forms an important basis on which a more
informed, appropriate approach to accessibility can be taken; it
also points us in the direction of current and future activities
necessary to continue the development of the Web as a way in
which social exclusion can be minimised.

[19] National Institute on Aging (2002)
Older adults and information technology: A compendium of scientific research
and web site accessibility guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Copyright Details

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part
of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or
commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the
full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish,
to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee.